[codemonkey (Lee)]

Originally Posted by Geoff45

Looks good Lee. You’ve done a good job on handling the bright core. Nice detail in the disc too.
Geoff

Thanks Geoff :-) I actually clipped the core the L data (but not the RGB). I tried to recover it with the RGB data but wasn't terribly successful. Because of the gradient I can't easily see it's clipped so I'm reasonably content with it.

Originally Posted by gregbradley

That's a good M104 by anyone's standards Lee.

Greg.

Thanks Greg :-)

Originally Posted by ChrisV

That's really nice Lee. That ontc newt is working well

Thanks Chris :-) Yeah, it's doing ok except occasional issues with star shapes that I can never get to the bottom of... might not be the scope though, could be user error or guiding at least in part.

Originally Posted by Camelopardalis

Great details, Lee, beautifully processed

Thanks Dunk :-)

Originally Posted by Stevec35

Not happy with it? I think it looks great!

Steve

Thanks Steve I'm always wishing things were sharper, and after being treated with good seeing on M83 recently I was hoping for better on this one.

Originally Posted by Screwdriverone

Holy crap Lee,

I don't know what you think is wrong with this image, it is fantastic!

Details in the disc are superb!

Love it!

Chris

haha, thanks Chris, glad you like it :-)

Originally Posted by AG Hybrid

Very impressive. But, 7.1 hours data on an object as bright as M104. At what point does diminishing returns kicks in and how hard?

Don't know. Just trying to gauge this for myself for when I start imaging this object.

Originally Posted by Camelopardalis

You learn this by stacking your images and deciding for yourself whether or not you’re happy with the noise.

If not, take a lot more subs...

Cheers Adrian :-) I'd agree with what Dunk said, it's all about getting a noise level you're happy with. That said...

7.1hrs isn't really a lot of time, I'd have gone longer if I actually had any patience. I usually aim for about 10hrs on a target these days, but often get too impatient to process it and end up getting less than I planned. I actually used some noise reduction in my final version of it (which I never uploaded), which I don't always do, which I think suggests I needed more data.

One thing to remember is that I'm shooting at 0.5"/px so the light gets spread over more pixels than people often use (I'd guess most imagers use 1"/px or more), so I need a correspondingly longer integration time to offset that.

One day I hope to develop some real patience and start doing 20-40hr integrations. You're right though, M104 is very bright so it lends itself to shorter integrations.

Originally Posted by multiweb

Superb!

Thanks Marc :-)